SUSHOBAN LUTHRA Vs. KIRAN LUTHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the constitution impugns order dated 17.09.2011 of Senior Civil Judge, West whereby application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by respondent No. 1 Mrs. Kiran Luthra, who was the plaintiff in the suit, was allowed.

(2.) THE plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners and other defendants. The respondent/plaintiff filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for seeking amendment in the plaint, which was allowed vide the impugned order, which is assailed by the petitioner/defendant.

(3.) THE main objection that was raised by the petitioners was that the plaintiff/respondent nowhere stated as to the date of knowledge of the said sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 3, and that the amendment sought was highly belated and further that a new case was sought to be set up by the plaintiff/respondent by introducing new facts. On the contrary, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that the suit was filed on 13.05.2005, and the sale deed was executed on 27th July, 2006 and that since it was not in existence at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff/respondent could not have pleaded in this regard at the time of filing of the plaint.